On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 23:02:07 +0200 Serhey Popovich <serhe.popov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:54:06 +0200
> > Serhey Popovych <serhe.popov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> diff --git a/ip/iplink.c b/ip/iplink.c
> >> index 1e685cc..4f9c169 100644
> >> --- a/ip/iplink.c
> >> +++ b/ip/iplink.c
> >> @@ -586,8 +586,10 @@ int iplink_parse(int argc, char **argv, struct
> >> iplink_req *req,
> >> *name = *argv;
> >> } else if (strcmp(*argv, "index") == 0) {
> >> NEXT_ARG();
> >> + if (*index)
> >> + duparg("index", *argv);
> >> *index = atoi(*argv);
> >> - if (*index < 0)
> >> + if (*index <= 0)
> >
> > Why not use strtoul instead of atoi?
> Do not see reason for strtoul() instead atoi():
>
> 1) main arg: indexes in kernel represented as "int", which is
> signed. <= 0 values are reserved for various special purposes
> (see net/core/fib_rules.c on how device matching implemented).
>
> Configuring network device manually with index <= 0 is not correct
> (however possible). Kernel itself never chooses ifindex <= 0.
>
> Having unsigned int > 0x7fffffff actually means index <= 0.
>
> 2) this is not single place in iproute2 where it is used: not
> going to remove last user.
>
> 3) make changes clear and transparent for review.
I would rather all of iproute2 correctly handles unsigned values.
Too much code is old K&R style C "the world is an int" and "who needs
to check for negative".
There already is get_unsigned() in iproute2 util functions.
Why not use that?
pgp6rU5aRxbXA.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
